GUT,I have ideas that I want to put up for debate,but it's late and i've had a drink so it'll probably be tomorrow in general suspects.Bond seems to be untouchable and I want to challenge that idea because I have suspicions about him.It needs further research and I want to know more about him,he's an interesting character.If you want hard evidence on Jack you'll be waiting forever,cheers
In Kelly's case he is doing the post mortem so he can 'write his own cheques',he's in a perfect position to mislead the police and by saying the killer didn't even possess the skills of a butcher he may be doing just that.He contradicts Phillips,who recognised the work of a medical man.
One of us is making a huge mistake here
It's possible I may have misunderstood your post so let me just share with you the fact that Dr. Bond did not conduct the official autopsy, that was the purview of Dr. Phillips.
The official autopsy is what was referenced by the police, not the observations of Dr. Bond which you are quoting.
Dr. Bond was requested by Anderson, at Warren's behest, to analyze the wounds across the Whitechapel victims to see if there were evidence of an experienced hand at work.
While he was studying the autopsy reports of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes & Stride, the murder of Mary Kelly occurred, which is why he was brought in at Millers Court on Friday afternoon.
Dr. Bond assisted Dr. Phillips on Saturday and with the concurrence of Dr. Phillips he made out his own post-mortem account of what he saw for Anderson.
This is the report that is often regarded the official report, but this is incorrect.
An 'autopsy' is a legally defined investigation conducted by the physician in charge of the case - this would be Dr. Phillips.
Whereas a 'post-mortem' is any inquiry into the physical remains of the body after death. There are no guidelines for a post-mortem, no legal definition, it can be as exhaustive or as brief as the conducting physician deems necessary.
Dr. Bond wrote a post-mortem report for Robert Anderson, it was for the eyes of no-one else except Anderson & Warren, it was not intended to supersede or replace the official autopsy conducted by Dr. Phillips.
Thanks Wickerman, I could well have deluded myself,it's easy to see what you want to see.He's an interesting character and may well be a paragon of virtue.I'd like to know more about him,cheers
I'm really only responding to the suggestion that Dr Bond was in a good position to deceive the police.
He could have deceived Anderson, but Swanson and the inspectors investigating the case had Dr Phillips autopsy to work with.
Anderson was certainly in a position to redirect the course of the investigation if he chose to do so, however not so easy if what he learned from Dr. Bond ran counter to the opinion of Dr. Phillips.
I was taking my lead from Prosectors book,where he says Bond did a post mortem in situ and also one at the mortuary, but I accept what you say,there are plenty of things I'm unaware of.If I just carry on and put my idea up I'd appreciate your input,I'm flying a kite and need a more knowledgeable critical eye cast over it.And I meant to say 'write his own script' not cheque
I'm asking questions about Bond's character as some of what he does and says could be construed as unusual.He appears to be above suspicion and we can't have that,we have to look at every possibility.
Harold Shipman was a popular,respected pillar of the community until they found out he was killing his patients by giving them heroin overdoses.He was linked to around 200 murders.
Jimmy Saville was a popular radio and TV personality.When he died it was discovered he had sexually molested hundreds,if not thousands of people including, I believe, one women who was on a hospital trolley dying of cancer.He was so trusted he had his own keys and gave advice on running a mental hospital.
Deviousness can be hard to spot,psychopaths aren't stupid.Both men were pillars of society and had successful deviant careers for many years.
My question is, was Bond a psychopath and did he take a Machiavellian grip on the Ripper investigation?
When he killed Annie Chapman ,the killer made a mistake in that he did such a good job it was obvious to Phillips that the perp was a medical man and the police began inquiries on those lines.
I speculate that if the killer was a doctor and wanted to continue,he had to divert attention from the medical profession otherwise it was only a matter of time before people started to ask awkward questions.Next we get 'Dear Boss' where the author writes 'they say I'm a doctor now ha ha'.It could be argued that in trying to push the police away from the idea of a doctor,it's actually an admission that he is one.
The double event looks a bit of a mess,but is it deliberately done that way to twist the investigation?Prosector posted details to argue for someone with anatomical knowledge,Brown says so too but is asked if a butcher could have done it and says yes.I suggest that the eyelids are done that way because the killer couldn't resist showing how skilled he is.Narcissism,classic psychopath.
There is a longer gap to Millers Court,during which Bond is brought in.My question is ,has he injected himself into the investigation,as we are told criminals sometimes do or is it all totally innocent?Was this longer time gap due to Bond's appointment?
Eventually we get Bond's statement saying the perp wasn't even a butcher,and the end result is confusion,we don't know what to think.The idea that Jack is a medical man has been totally downgraded to that of a dung gatherer.I propose that Bond misled the police with that statment.He was in a position of trust and when he spoke they listened,he had influence.He may be innocent but we have to ask the question,if it could be shown that he had leanings towards psychopathy it might be a start.Then there is the profile.Why did he write that?Is it about himself?What power did that have over the minds of the police?I find the idea that the first criminal profile was written by Jack The Ripper so appealing,it would fit so well with the weird humour the perp appears to have,but it couldn''t happen,could it?
Stranger things have happened at sea
I was taking my lead from Prosectors book,where he says Bond did a post mortem in situ and also one at the mortuary,...
Prosector is correct, we can tell from Dr. Bond's description of Kelly's body on the bed that he was present along with other doctors in Millers Court on Friday. We also know from other sources that he assisted Dr. Phillips on Saturday, the day of the official autopsy.
I'm not sure if you are aware, Dr. Bond's brief post-mortem report is mentioned in the press:
"Dr. G.B. Phillips, the divisional surgeon of the H Division, whose reticence is justified by an assurance he gave of secrecy, has copious notes of the result of the post-mortem examination, and with nearly every conclusion at which he has arrived. Dr. Thomas Bond, of Westminster, a well-known expert on crimes of violence, agrees. Dr. Phillips has only vaguely indicated to the local police the result of his investigations, but a report on the question has, it has been asserted, been jointly made by him and Dr. Bond, and submitted to Sir Charles Warren."
Echo, 10 Nov.
As can be seen, Dr. Bond's report was the result of input from both Phillips & Bond.